/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10580224]

>A Second Galaxy With No Dark Matter Was Found, Contradicting The Dark Matter Theory

How the fuck does finding galaxies without dark matter contradict dark matter? seems like it only makes it more likely that it's just stuff we can't see as opposed to some kind of modified gravity

[Anonymous No.10580235]

>>10580224
This just shows the Universe is not as uniform as we've thought.

[Anonymous No.10580395]

Not a physicist but isn't the point of dark matter that it is involved in galaxy formation? Not finding any in a galaxy would throw a wrench in that theory.

[Anonymous No.10580425]

>>10580395
>Not a physicist
Obviously.

[Anonymous No.10580427]

Optimum Theory states that dark matter is the medium through which that what we consider to be light waves pertubate. If there were no dark matter there, how could we see the galaxy at all? Trash article.

[Anonymous No.10580431]

>>10580395
From what I understand, galaxy formation is still an underdeveloped field of study. Dark matter is an explanation for why galaxies appear to have more gravity than they should, for example how they cause more gravitational lensing than their predicted matter should cause on paper.

[Anonymous No.10580455]

>>10580224
That doesnt mean dark matter (btw its something we know nothing about) doesnt exist. In other words we know that we dont know. And thats never ever bad, especially for science. We need to move constantly and the carrot keeps us motivated.
Its a point against the theory. That doesnt mean the theory is not useful. Every theory has points against it, doesnt mean science is useless.
>just stuff we can't see
You need to read more about it.
>modified gravity
Its just that, a modification we need to add to account for the universe's behaviour because the conventional matter doesnt hold. However since we know jack shit about Quantum gravity (thats why its in the meme stage), Im willing to bet in its maturity it will be able to explain these (both dark matter and portions without it) anomalies.

[Anonymous No.10580472]

>>10580427
>Make conclusion based on trash theory
>Calling the article trash

[Anonymous No.10580501]

>>10580395
There's nothing stopping a bunch of mass from having orbits and clustering without dark matter. The dark matter just adds more mass to the system.

[Anonymous No.10580541]

>>10580224
>>A Second Galaxy With No Dark Matter Was Found, Contradicting The Dark Matter Theory.
Source?

[Anonymous No.10580735]

There's also the other way around:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_galaxy

>On 25 August 2016, astronomers reported that Dragonfly 44, an ultra diffuse galaxy (UDG) with the mass of the Milky Way galaxy, but with nearly no discernable stars or galactic structure, may be made almost entirely of dark matter.

[Anonymous No.10580749]

>>10580224
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.10580816]

>>10580455
>btw its something we know nothing about
Not entirely true. We're learning more about what it isn't. The more constraints you can find the narrower your future lines of inquiry should be until you can quote Sherlock Holmes's favorite quote.

[Anonymous No.10580847]

>>10580541
>>10580749
probably one of these
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/second-galaxy-no-dark-matter-07114.html
https://advocator.ca/science/breakthrough-discovery-contradicting-the-dark-matter-theory-a-second-galaxy-with-no-dark-matter-was-found/9622

[Anonymous No.10580999]

>>10580847
Dark Matter is a point of space in the higher dimensions being connected to multiple points on the lower dimension such that a particle exists virtually in multiple places at once while still having a gravitational effect. Almost like a wormhole, except only gravity propagates through it.
This is why we can't perceive dark matter (it's because the matter is actually somewhere else).

[Anonymous No.10581022]

I saw an interesting piece talking about dark matter being the "fabric" of space itself stretching and moving about, but I don't know enough and would have to read more but it was an interesting theory that it's that instead of just assuming it's physical matter we can't see.

[Anonymous No.10581351]

>>10580224
DM is affected by gravity. Galaxies have a gravitational field. Thus DN should be attracted to galaxies. We see there are counterexamples. Thus the hypothesis is in dire trouble.

[Anonymous No.10581361]

>>10581351
it's 2 galaxies out of millions, freak accidents can happen, meanwhile if you're trying to explain everything with modified gravity I don't see how that's possible at all

[Anonymous No.10581406]

>>10580999
IT'S GRAVITY BLEEDING IN

[Anonymous No.10581430]

fucking big ego scientists sucking cock for street klcred insisting on using fuck shit backwards vocabulary just so they can be part of the scientific idustrial complex.

[Anonymous No.10581445]

>>10581361
we usually try to explain those phenomena that escape theory with an ubiquitous, invisible and somehow incorporeal matter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
we usually are wrong in those assumptions

[Anonymous No.10581447]

>>10580224
>just stuff we can't see as opposed to some kind of modified gravity
Do you have actual evidence? What numbers are you using to calculate these probabilities?

[Anonymous No.10581466]

>>10581445
Except when we aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

[Anonymous No.10581482]

>>10581361
>don't see how that's possible at all
Because you're looking in the wrong epistemic direction.

>we were wrong about gravity

That can happen. It already has, unless you're saying Newton was correct, rather than merely accurate.

[Anonymous No.10581486]

>>10581445
I think you misrepresent it. It's not some asspull magic fairy dust in the galaxy, it's a discrepancy between the model (which is successful as fuck and has made many accurate predictions and explanations that built the modern world), and observation.
It's obvious something is wrong, it behaves like "something" is there, but there's nothing in the model to explain it.
You're in a situation where either the entire model is complete garbage, and your competing theory needs to do everything it does better and more accurately, or you accept that it's an incomplete theory. Most people accept the latter because there's far more saying it's right, then it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.10581492]

>>10581466
Neptune is not ubiquitous, invisible and somehow incorporeal.

[Anonymous No.10581493]

>>10581492
It was until they actually observed it.

[Anonymous No.10581503]

>>10580224
Well first we need to know what the issue actually is.
Does this galaxy spin as if it had dark matter? In that case is it a disagreement between two measurements that should agree?
Or do they look at how the galaxy spins to determine it has no dark matter?
Without an article and further information there's nothing much to discuss.

[Anonymous No.10581506]

>>10581486
Dark matter completely saves GR, without the need to try and develop any better model

[Anonymous No.10581511]

>>10581486
also it is described as some kind of matter that escapes our observations, not as a "discrepancy of general relativity"

[Anonymous No.10581514]

>>10580455
Modified gravity means something specific. It's any new physics that account for dark matter's effect without having dark matter exist, eg MOND. Dark matter isn't a modified gravity hypothesis because it says gravity works the same, there's just more of it.

[Anonymous No.10581516]

>>10580224
The only reason they think dark matter exists afaik is that the density and speed of galaxies don't match what is expected from pure gravitational laws...anyways, galaxies that look "normal" would suggest that the dark matter theory was never needed. How could this happen? Science is supposed to be immune to suchbandwagon effects!

[Anonymous No.10581523]

>>10581493
My phrasing was wrong
>Neptune was not theorized as a ubiquitous, invisible and somehow incorporeal object

[Anonymous No.10581528]

>>10581486
Luminiferous either isn't an asspull either. Light waves are described by physics as physical waves, so the assumption of a medium was rational. Wrong theories can be rational and have explanatory power.

[Anonymous No.10581533]

>>10581528
By similar physics as the physics of waves I meant.

[Anonymous No.10581557]

>>10580427
Dude, you snuffed too much of your aether.

[Anonymous No.10581561]

>>10581533
Physical waves fuck I hate my phone

[Anonymous No.10581587]

>>10581528
it was not just a medium, it was a medium with magic properties

[Anonymous No.10581598]

the theory is good you only need to correct it with random amount of invisible matter haha

[Anonymous No.10581644]

I know what dark matter is and you guys don't, haha! It's all so simple and they're throwing it in your faces..

[Anonymous No.10583507]

>>10581598
But it does work and has some of the most famous predictions proven right a century later. The problem is at large scales they have this problem, much like how Newton was right until you start reaching crazy velocities or how GR breaks down at the quantum level.
Finding galaxies without dark matter is huge and gives us another clue as to what the fuck is going on at these scales

[Anonymous No.10583540]

>>10581598
>matter that is hard to see? no that can’t exist all physics is just wrong haha

[Anonymous No.10583626]

>>10581406
ARTIFICIAL TENSION POINTS

[Anonymous No.10583662]

>>10583540
>matter that is IMPOSSIBLE to see, doesn't interact with other known matter in any way, clusters only when other visible stars are present and represents 95% of the matter of the universe

[Anonymous No.10583669]

>>10583662
>clusters only when other visible stars are present
not necessarily, but it's certainly where you would expect to see a lot of it.

There are other theories of course, but so far dark matter being actual matter is the theory that can best explain observations.

[Anonymous No.10583676]

>>10580847
Taken from one of the articles pic related

[Anonymous No.10583680]

>>10583669
no, the best theory is the incompleteness of GR

[Anonymous No.10583691]

>>10583680
What does that mean? That's what dark matter is. GR + actual extra matter to make up the missing mass.

[Anonymous No.10583704]

>>10583691
maybe he means gr doesn't scale up

[Anonymous No.10583709]

>>10583691
wrong dark matter makes GR complete
>>10583704
yep

[Anonymous No.10583711]

>>10583676
This is totally stupid because no one has proven that matter of any form, ,usually called dark matter, is the solution to the galactic rotation anomaly. Indeed, the lack of even one dark matter sighting is weak evidence that matter does not cause the galactic rotation anomaly at all.

Dark matter was only thought up as a way to solve this galactic rotation problem. Think about a pile of sand on a dinner plate. If you start to spin the plate too fast, the grains of sand will start to fly off the plate because the friction with the plate is not strong enough to hold them. Dark was introduced to explain a similar problem in galaxies. The stars on the outer edges of certain disc galaxies are moving too fast to be held in the galaxy by the gravity of the matter can see. Like sand on a plate, these stars should be tossed out of thier galaxies because gravity cannot hold them at the speeds we observe. However, they do stay in their galaxies and this is a mystery. Dark matter is only one possible explanation, and not a good one.


People get caught up thinking about dark matter of this form or dark matter of that form, but there is no evidence at all that dark matter exists in any form, and in my opinion there is no good reason to think it exists at all. The problem with the rotation of galaxies can be solved with magic invisible matter called dark matter, ~BUT~ it can also be solved if the real 4D shape of galaxies is more complicated than that which we extrapolate from the 2D images of galaxies that show up in our telescopes. I think it is much more reasonable to think that galaxies have an odd shape, possibly including "hyper-geoemetry," than it is to say that the universe is filled with magical invisible dark matter particles that are "everywhere" except "any place we ever look for them."

[Anonymous No.10583715]

>>10583704
But that doesn't explain the dark matter effects. It's not the "best" explanation, it's not an explanation at all.

[Anonymous No.10583729]

>>10583715
it means that we need another theory of gravity at those scales

[Anonymous No.10583731]

>>10583729
Or that there's yet undetected particles making up the missing pass. Which is currently the more favoured theory.

[Anonymous No.10583736]

>>10580224
Maybe dark matter isn't needed and gravity just behaves nonlineary?

[Anonymous No.10583739]

>>10583731
i know bb i don't have an opinion on the matter so stop arguing with me

[Anonymous No.10583741]

>>10583731
>It's not GR that's wrong! it's the standard model!
Ridiculous

[Anonymous No.10583744]

>>10583739
>Says wrong shit on the topic
>I have no opinion, stop calling me out!
You can stop posting any time.

[Anonymous No.10583746]

>>10583711
>This is totally stupid because no one has proven that matter of any form, ,usually called dark matter, is the solution to the galactic rotation anomaly.
It's ~a~ solution, and a damn good one at that. Here's the original suggestion:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1957BAN....14....1V

It's not hard to find modern simulations showing that an unseen matter distribution produces the observed curves.

>~BUT~ it can also be solved if the real 4D shape of galaxies is more complicated than that which we extrapolate from the 2D images of galaxies that show up in our telescopes.
[Citation needed]
You're gonna need to show some calculations and physical justification if you want people to believe you.

The CMB power spectrum and BAO provide constraints on the quantity of dark matter present, and this is in good agreement with how much we infer from galaxy rotation and anomalous lensing from galaxy clusters.

[Anonymous No.10583749]

>>10583744
>>10583704
>>10583680
we aren't the same people if you can't tell retard

[Anonymous No.10583751]

>>10583741
Why ridiculous?

[Anonymous No.10583754]

>>10583749
I was directly responding to someone saying something wrong about dark matter, and you reply saying "I don't have an opinion, leave me alone"

[Anonymous No.10583767]

>>10583754
i'm tired of retarded autist ass. you're obtuse, you couldn't understand what anon obviously meant so i came in and lent you a helping hand.you're just looking to start an argument and i don't care for it kys

[Anonymous No.10583775]

What if stars acted like molecules and that's why they don't go flying out by galactic spinning?

[Anonymous No.10583779]

>>10583751
Because pretends the SM to be incomplete because the incompleteness of GR makes it so that there must be some kind of magic space dust (SM is still incomplete but not because of the dark matter theory)

[Anonymous No.10583782]

>>10583767
>I was trying to help
>Therefor if I tell you something that's wrong, you just just ignore me instead of correcting me.

How about if you don't have an opinion in the matter, you don't get upset when people when people correct you?

[Anonymous No.10583786]

>>10583779
How is magic space dust less likely than GR being wrong?

We've discovered "magic space dust" before, as neutrinos. So it's not beyond imagination there's particles out there with the proposed properties of dark matter. Certainly the issue could be with GR too, but what I've been hearing is that the WIMP theories produce models that match the data much better than any kind of extensions to GR have done so far.

[Anonymous No.10583802]

>>10583782
i never told you something wrong, i gave you the other possible explanation anon alluded to and your dumbass couldn't pick up. which isn't wrong as you yourself wrote in your post

[Anonymous No.10583805]

>>10583779
Modified GR is just as magical, because we observe no gravitational effects contradicting GR on sub-galactic scales. The framework of GR is geometrical, and it doesn't make sense to just shoehorn in weird effects at large scales just to fit the data without some geometric justification. That turns out to be incredibly difficult, to the point where people are turning to modified Newtonian dynamics and just choosing to ignore the fact that we have very precise evidence for GR on sub-galactic scales.

[Anonymous No.10583808]

>>10583802
>it means that we need another theory of gravity at those scales
Which is wrong. Because dark matter also explains the effects. Which I told you and you got upset about it for some reason.

[Anonymous No.10583827]

>>10583805
exactly, so GR is wrong on galactic scales and dark matter properties are completely an asspull

[Anonymous No.10583833]

>>10583808
you're dense as fuck

[Anonymous No.10583838]

>>10583833
lol. okay so.

[Anonymous No.10583841]

>>10583827
dark matter properties is simply what we observe. If might be explained by a modified GR, or my yet undetected particles.

[Anonymous No.10583863]

>>10583827
No, did you read what I said?
>The framework of GR is geometrical, and it doesn't make sense to just shoehorn in weird effects at large scales just to fit the data without some geometric justification.
There's no good way to do that, and the fact that GR otherwise works so incredibly precisely (and in fact, still works incredibly precisely on large scales with dark matter) needs to be taken seriously.

You're not seriously proposing there are two separate types of gravity, right?

[In Your Palace No.10583998]

>>10580224
Dark Matter is not directly observable. It is a hypothesis that a certain type of matter exists (that we cannot observe) or else our gravitational model collapses - DOES NOT HOLD. The measurements we get for the rotational speed of galaxies do not conform with the theory of the gravity as we know it. The speed of rotation would suggest a much larger mass - not yet seen - which we call: Dark Matter.

That's all folks. A fucking crutch for a failed theory.

The galaxies observed (much sparser than our own - 1/100 times the density) conform to the current theory of gravity. You can observe nothing and especially not "muh Dark matter" from a few 1000 of light years away.

There exist theories for which gravity behaves differently at large scales. Dark Matter is the theory that is very difficult to disprove experimentally because it is fucking "invisible" and you can always add some "matter", at the points where your model fails miserably.

[Anonymous No.10584018]

>>10583998
>Dark Matter is the theory that is very difficult to disprove experimentally because it is fucking "invisible" and you can always add some "matter", at the points where your model fails miserably.
Same can be said of all other explanations of the speed of galaxy spin. You can just as easily suggest gravity is just different at big scales and never be able to prove if that's really true or not.

Though of course it's possible we could some day come up with a good candidate for dark matter particles and figure out a way to detect them.

[Anonymous No.10584420]

>>10583711
>Postulating some substance we can only detect through the effects of gravitation is stupid, there's no evidence
>But it's totally an extra spatial dimension guys, because it could be

[Anonymous No.10584426]

>>10583833
>NO YOU DUMB

I only see this on /sci/

[Anonymous No.10584470]

>>10583662
>it doesn’t interact electromagnetically so it’s IMPOSSiBLE to see waaaaaaah

[Anonymous No.10584489]

>>10584018
>>10583998
What if there's weak and strong gravity? Like the nuclear forces. I'm ready for my Nobel now.

[Anonymous No.10584812]

>>10584426
>still begging for my attention

[Anonymous No.10585193]

>>10580224
dark matter was never found. it was made up to make equations work.

all because mainstream science neglects the role of electricity and plasma in space.

[Anonymous No.10585809]

>>10585193
there's way more evidence for the existence of dark matter than the retarded plasma universe meme
mainstream science already accounts for it, why are you lying?

[Anonymous No.10585811]

>>10584489
Maybe there is. Come up with a formal model of this concept that lines up closely with observations. Let me know how it works out.

[Anonymous No.10585841]

>>10580224
Could you make a miniature star that was 99% dark matter and 1% normal matter? Like, the dark matter is just there to create the pressure needed to ignite fusion.

[Anonymous No.10585842]

>>10584812
cringe

[Anonymous No.10586167]

>>10585809
>evidence
there is literally zero evidence for dark matter.

[Anonymous No.10586183]

>>10586167
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

>waaaaah, it's not evidence because I don't like it!

[Anonymous No.10586200]

>>10586167
http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/driving2.html

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BAO-cosmology.html

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

Yawn

[Anonymous No.10586217]

>>10586183
>>10586200
they're all way too vague, with juge assumptions pulled from their asses.

[Anonymous No.10586228]

>>10586217
Instead of covering your ears, try reading them.

I'll spoonfeed you the results of the arxiv paper. After a galaxy collision, we directly observe the gravitational effects to be significantly offset from the visible matter distribution. Instead it's distributed right where we would expect dark matter to end up, as it doesn't experience friction like the ionized plasma that makes up the bulk of galaxy mass.

Modified gravity cannot explain this drastic offset.

[Anonymous No.10586232]

>>10586228
that makes up the bulk of visible galaxy mass*

[Anonymous No.10586237]

>>10580427
You are starting to pursue beliefs anon, thats not how science works, if dark matter doesn't fit empirical evidence then maybe is time to elaborate another theory

[Anonymous No.10586244]

>>10586167
Gravitational lensing showing galaxies with more gravity than the observable matter could account for.

[Anonymous No.10586247]

>>10586244
modern science leans way too much on gravity. not everything is literally just gravity. plasma and electricity have a big role in the universe but are mostly neglected.

[Anonymous No.10586253]

>>10586247
>I know this because a youtube crank told me so. He told me not to blindly trust to scientific community. So I trust him! blindly!

[Anonymous No.10586257]

>>10586253
>ad hominem
not an argument

[Anonymous No.10586258]

>>10586247
[citation needed]
Electric Universe is an undergrad's fever dream.

[Anonymous No.10586264]

>>10581486
Name at least one (1) techonological breakthrough made by modern physics that involves dark matter and/or other unverifiable theories

[Anonymous No.10586272]

>>10581506
>dark matter saves GR
>Higgs boson and gravitational waves save SR
>more asspulls like dark energy
>theory isn't abandoned to support alternative models
I'm starting to see a trend here

[Anonymous No.10586274]

>>10586264
>techonological breakthrough
Not a goal of cosmology. If you're asking for things dark matter can explain which modified gravity can't,
>>10586200
>>10586183

[Anonymous No.10586301]

>>10586272
>Higgs boson and gravitational waves save SR
But these were confirmed to be real though.

[Anonymous No.10586308]

>>10586301
Does the experiment by which they were "proven" have reproductibility and is it falsable? Then no, they haven't been proven, they just gathered some data and asociated it with its theory ad hoc.

[Anonymous No.10586315]

>>10586308
>Does the experiment by which they were "proven" have reproductibility and is it falsable?
Yes on both accounts.

[Anonymous No.10586330]

>>10586308
Yes, they have been reproduced and are falsifiable. This stuff doesn't take much effort to look up, at least give it a shot.

[Anonymous No.10586354]

>>10586308
>Does the experiment by which they were "proven" have reproductibility and is it falsable?
Were you born yesterday? How can you not remember the huge fuss around the discovery of the Higgs boson?

[Anonymous No.10586385]

>>10583775
bro.....

[Anonymous No.10586408]

>>10580224
Believing on the dark matter faerytale in the current year

[Anonymous No.10587182]

How are we detecting dark matter, or the lack thereof?

[Anonymous No.10587516]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t0jaE--l0Y

[Anonymous No.10587576]

>>10587516
based Matt answering my question

[Anonymous No.10587597]

>>10587182
> Direct measurements
Rotation speed of stars in galaxies. [We need more mass to explain the results]
Gravitational lensing. [Same]

> Simulations
Computer models of the evolution of the universe, i.e galaxy formation and large scale cluster structures give much more accurate results when dark matter is added to the model.

[Anonymous No.10587759]

>>10586257
Neither is anything that you've said.

[Anonymous No.10588154]

>>10587516
Oh fuck yeah new episode

[Anonymous No.10589683]

>>10586354
>the huge fuss around the discovery of the Higgs boson?
I remember all the disappointment because the higgs was too heavy and not producing any SUSY particles.

[Anonymous No.10591968]

>>10580235
how uniform did "we" think it was?

[Anonymous No.10593885]

>>10587597
Hint: there could be a better model which could explain the measured data without the need of invisible magic matter.

[Anonymous No.10593920]

>>10593885
There could be.

But there isn't.

Physics doesn't have any complete models of the universe. Presumably they exist. But we only make due with the best ones we have.

[Anonymous No.10593938]

>>10593920
That’s intellectual laziness which is a sign of a declining civilization. This attitude will lead to the acceptation of worse and worse models while they will claim them just ‘good enough’ as we are uncapable of doing better anyway.

[Anonymous No.10593948]

>>10593938
This is literally how science has always been. There has never been such thing as an unfalsifiable model in human history and there never will be. Any model will always be open to questioning no matter how thoroughly tested.

The intellectual laziness is on your behalf for not even understand the basics of the scientific process.

[Anonymous No.10593998]

>>10593948
yeah but I'd say there's a spectrum of how sure we should be about currently accepted models, we shouldn't talk about "dark matter" in a statement about the universe the same way we talk about electrons for example
we should say "theoretical dark matter" or "hypothetical dark matter" to more accurately describe it

[Anonymous No.10594011]

>>10593998
You don't even understand the topic you talking about.

"dark matter" is the name of the phenomenon where there *appears* to be missing mass in galaxies. The solution to this problem may be actual real "dark matter", or it might be the that our understanding of gravity is wrong. "dark matter" is just the name of the mystery.

It's also looking extremely unlikely to be anything except some kind of real physical "dark matter" at this point though.

[Anonymous No.10594014]

>>10580224
> A Second Galaxy With No Dark Matter Was Found, Contradicting The Dark Matter Theory

But no one has said that anywhere.

[Anonymous No.10594034]

>>10594011
that is such backpedaling bullshit, show me a single article that refers to "dark matter" as anything other than actual dark matter

[Anonymous No.10594062]

>>10594034
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3rgl-_a5C0

I've heard several times this is how the term "dark matter" gets used. It was explained to me on atronomycast years back too.

>that is such backpedaling bullshit
It's your own fault for not understand how the terms are used.

[Anonymous No.10594063]

>>10580224
>"Welp, there's no dark matter in 0.0001% of the universe, guess it's time to call this one busted."

[Anonymous No.10594091]

>>10594062
if they say "the problem of dark matter" or something equivalent it doesn't count because they're referring to related phenomena and not dark matter specifically

[Anonymous No.10594097]

>>10594091
Yes. And?

[Anonymous No.10594165]

>>10594062
No, there is a ton of shit that refers to dark matter like a noun, with a discrete physical category that will some day be known. It's definitely not anon's fault that tons of people misuse the term.

[Anonymous No.10594185]

Is dark matter actually a theory oft just a hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.10594199]

>>10594185
We know the effects of "dark matter" are real. We know there is definitely some kind of phenomenon that makes galaxies appear heavier than can be accounted for by their measured mass.

The solution to the mystery may be an actual pile of matter we can't see that accounts for the rest of the mass, or it could be something else entirely. There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest it's real matter that we just can't see by this point.

I'm not sure at what point hypothesis becomes theory, but certainly it's not yet accepted with very high confidence that "dark matter" is real matter yet. And we certainly haven't detected it directly.

[Anonymous No.10594314]

>>10594185
a placeholder

[Anonymous No.10594449]

What /sci/‘s opinions on WIMPs? It’s my physics professors area of research, we’re doing LHC simulations at high TeVs to test detection limits right now on the various models

[Anonymous No.10594609]

>>10593948
>Any model will always be open to questioning no matter how thoroughly tested.

Sure doesn't feel like nowadays

[Anonymous No.10594714]

>>10594609
There have always been mainstream "consensus" beliefs, because some models have much less evidence against them than others. However, new evidence always shifts the balance between different models, and new models arise all the time. It's just difficult to perceive that change on everyday timescales, because this stuff takes decades to change significantly.

[Anonymous No.10594806]

They call it dark matter because we know jack shit about it. All we know is that something is there making galaxies and stuff heavier than they should be.

[Anonymous No.10594855]

>>10580224
>How the fuck does finding galaxies without dark matter contradict dark matter?
It doesn't.
It actually supports the theory that Dark Matter exists because the fact that we have found galaxies that work under the gravitational rules we know with only detectable matter makes it even more likely that there is some undetected matter affecting other galaxies, rather than the gravitational rules being wrong.

[Anonymous No.10594858]

>>10580427
>Optimum Theory states that dark matter is the medium through which that what we consider to be light waves pertubate. If there were no dark matter there, how could we see the galaxy at all?
I guess Optimum Theory needs some saving, then.

[Anonymous No.10595100]

>>10580427
This

[Anonymous No.10596764]

>>10594855
The elephant in the room then is why there are galaxies without DM since DM should be attracted to any galaxy. There is also the question of isotropic early universe, was it really that uneven for DM?